Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  February 25, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PST

12:00 am
politics. that's for the two countries to resolve. don't you think? and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the ceo in charge of the largest public oil company on the planet is all about fracking in america. except when it's in his own back yard. who could blame him? the business of extracting fossil yules and transporting them is a dirty one. here's what it looks like along the mississippi. boats stranded after a barge collision yesterday sent over 31,000 gallons of light crude oil into the water forcing officials to close a 65-mile stretch of our nation's greatest river including the port of new orleans. the fact is these days you don't have to be adjacent to a major waterway or mire deep in coal country to see up close the ugly reality of fossil fuel
12:01 am
extraction. during america's 21st century energy boom. that is because fracking, the technique that has revolutionized american energy production can and is being done just about anywhere. even in the peaceful hideaways of well-to-do executives from the very companies doing the fracking. >> ours is an industry that is built on technology, it's built on science. it's built on engineering. and because we have a society that by in large is illiterate in these areas. science, math and engineering. what we do is a mystery to them. and they find it scary. and because of that, it creates easy opportunities for opponents of development, activist organizations, to manufacture fear. >> meet rex tillerson, chairman and ceo of exxonmobil, the largest oil company in the world. you've probably heard of tell.
12:02 am
exxon headquarters are near dallas, texas, a complex so ominous as one reporter found it's been nicknamed by employees, the death star. >> that's no moon. it's a space station. >> in 2012, tillerson took home $40.3 million in compensation. today, exxonmobil is the largest natural gas producer in the country. >> natural gas is cleaner burning than most fossil fuels. and it's vital to our energy needs. >> so for exxonmobil, fracking is the future. and they'd like it with as little regulation as possible. >> it's largely, i think, regulatory policy is what could upset the realization of this tremendous potential for our economy. >> as for people who are concerned about fracking in their backyards, well, they're misinformed. >> there has not been a documented case of substantial or even, i would argue,
12:03 am
insignificant contamination or freshwater as a result of hydraulic fracturing. so i think the fears are misplaced. some has been through a lot of less than perfect information that's been provided. >> so rex tillerson thinking fracking in someone's back yard is perfectly legit, but fracking near his on backyard, that's a different story. really, who could blame him? tillerson and his wife own an 83 acre horse ranch in bartonville, texas, a dallas suburb. it's worth over $5 million. a remote sprawling estate and the tillersons would like to keep it that way. >> we would like to stay here a long time. i cannot stay in place where i do not know who to count on. >> bartonville is near the fracking bonanza sweeping across texas. in order to frack, you need a ton of water and need to store that water somewhere in the
12:04 am
ground or pools or 160 foot water tower like the one built near tillerson's home. tillerson and his wealthy neighbors don't want an ugly water tower near their multimillion dollar properties, thank you very much, so they're suing. tillerson and his wife have joined several of their neighbors in a lawsuit to stop the construction of the water tower. the lawsuit argues the tower, which would be used for fracking, would create a noise, nuisance and traffic hazards. you may recognize the suit's plaintiff, former house majority leader and environmentalist dick armey. armey and tillerson are concerned about the value of their luxury properties worth multiple millions of dollars. a lawsuit explains that residents simply want to live in an upscale community free of industrial properties, tall buildings and other structures that might devalue their properties an adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy.
12:05 am
rex tillerson is leading the fracking revolution. just not in his backyard. >> joining me now is josh fox, director and producer of "gas land" and "gas land 2." josh, you have been reporting on, documenting the fracking explosion in this country for years now. you have been also poring through the lawsuit. >> i have. >> and you stand here today, you stand with rex. >> well, either rex tillerson has just joined the anti-fracking movement or completely exposed all the hypocrisy, brutality and unfairness in this entire system. this is the way it happens to everyone. this is the way it happened to me when i found out fracking was coming to my backyard, i first got worried about just the value of land impacts. you know, what was this going to be? noise, lights, trucks. that's what he's first talking about. then, of course, the next thing that happens is you realize, oh my good, the whole water table under my town can be contaminated. concerned about my town. you realize, oh, there's regional air pollution, organic compounds, chemicals in the air. we have to talk about this as a regional issue.
12:06 am
you might realize, then, this is 60 years-plus of fossil fuel development that would engender a whole new era of fossil fuels. we can't do that. we're going to cook the whole climate. we should go to the government about this. then you realize, oh, no, wait, my own companies, the oil company spent $400,000 a day lobbying washington so we don't have a recourse in washington. i guess i might have to sue in private court to stop this. in my backyard. >> the lawsuit, as you said, the lawsuit is every time that people encounter this in their backyards and do get radicalized very quickly, it does start on this basic stuff of there are trucks all the time. there is an amazing amount of noise. there's an amazing amount of disruption. everything in this lawsuit -- >> everything in this lawsuit i agree with, i hope they win and set a legal precedent. they're asking for a permanent injunction, a ban. what they're say is this substantially impairs the property.
12:07 am
it's detrimental to public health, safety, morals, comfort. the general welfare. they're saying that their property rights in unique and irreplaceable. negligence, gross negligence, malice. >> how have these companies, companies like exxonmobil and others reacted when those kinds of cases have been made in court before? >> oh, 100% denial. we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars spent to discredit the reporting in my film, in all of -- you know, "the new york times." thousands of news stories on this. you know, 15 million americans live within 1 mile of a fracking well right now. and that means -- this campaign is in its infancy. they want to drill 2 million new wells in the united states. >> people need to understand this thing has exploded at an absolutely unprecedented rate. we have a map, actually, of the areas being fracked in the united states. it comes courtesy of gas land. >> this is the map of the shale place. they're not all being fracked, but that's the potential.
12:08 am
the oil and gas industry released more land than the total landmass of california and florida combined. that's a checker board -- >> okay, but josh, you and i are both climate folks, very concerned about climate. look at the emission of this country. they've gone down. everyone says natural gas is the reason. it's much better than coal. what, you want to burn coal? you want to push us into a melting planet? >> the co2 emissions have perhaps gone down. a lot of that was due to the recession. >> right. >> methane emissions are exploding. we're looking at the total greenhouse gas impact, right, not just the co2. the natural gas industrial we say, we burn cleaner than coal. they're not reporting the fact there's all this methane that's leaking out of these sites and it has shown to be offsetting any climate benefit in the short 20-year period. because methane is 100 times more potent than co2. >> it's a much thicker blanket. >> the buses that say clean burning natural gas, transportation is one of the
12:09 am
worst. that it's actually worse than diesel fuel to use natural gas. >> josh fox, director of "gas land" and gas land 2." joining me from washington, d.c.. you were welcoming mr. tillerson to the cause today. >> the same thing happened to me, chris. i never thought i'd say it, but i sympathize with the poor ceo of exxonmobil because the truth is nobody wants this to happen to them. we had a huge 150-foot tower literally at the foot of our driveway. it was a 24-hour operation. loud all night. two months they were drilling before they entered the phase. this is happening to thousands of my constituents in colorado which is why four of the five biggest cities in the district i represent have passed moratoriums or bans on fracking. guess what? exxonmobil and other companies are suing those cities to overturn those bans and force them to frack.
12:10 am
>> so one of the things that i find amazing about the fracking explosion, if you go, you travel through the country, you go to places and town halls, it's one of the most controversial issues in the country on the ground, whether you're in colorado or upstate new york or you're in pennsylvania. in washington, it's not controversial. in washington, it seems like there's a huge consensus we need to extract as much as we can. this technology is great. it unleashes all this natural gas. that's good for the climate. that's good for american energy independence. is there just a consensus in washington that this is great? >> well, you know what, it is one of the biggest issues i hear about from constituents. they're worried about property values, and guess what, instead of a $5 million house, they might have a $200,000. they've lost sales because people don't want to be houses that have industrial fracking operations right next to them. this is affecting my constituents. it doesn't mean that natural gas isn't part of our energy present, our energy future. there's plenty of appropriate areas to do it, but you can't
12:11 am
give everything away to the industry. we need to make sure homeowners are reasonably safe or else nobody's going to want to live or be able to live in extraction areas. >> is there an appetite for that among your colleagues? let me give you this little nugget here. this is from lee fung, reporting for "public report" and the "nation." stephen sayle has become a senior staff member of the house committee on science. the standing congressional committee, maintaining our scientific in the world. they believe washington is a wholly owned subsidiary of the companies. >> lafayette, colorado, 25,000 people, broomfield, 45,000. they've taken it into their own hands, put before their voters moratoriums for a couple years on fracking. they've passed, in many cases overwhelmingly. now they're being sued by among others the very people who are also now have the ceo who's suing in his own area not to have it.
12:12 am
>> i think it would only be right in a rex tillerson would share his lawyer with some of the other people. >> we could use it. >> who could use a lawyer like that. after when this suit is finished. particularly if he wins. it would only be supporting of him. >> it's really bullying. these towns have 20,000, 25,000 people. it's hard to afford a major lawsuit against a multibillion dollar industry. it's really a form of bullying. >> congressman jared polis of colorado. thank you so much. all right. who needs to understand the nuances and complexities and conflicts around the world when we have this? >> the ukrainian people determine their own future. they want to be western. fighting for the opposition. they're my heroes. today we are all georgians. >> the john mccain school of foreign policy, up next. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment is right. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. tell your doctor about
12:13 am
all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial. then don't miss sleep train's wbest rest ever? you'll find sleep train's very best mattresses at the guaranteed lowest price. plus, pay no interest for 3 years on beautyrest black, stearns & foster,
12:14 am
serta icomfort, even tempur-pedic. and rest even better with sleep train's risk-free 100-day money back guarantee. get your best rest ever from sleep train. superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ i should note we did reach out to exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson. we did not hear back. i would love to talk to him about these issues any time here on the program.
12:15 am
now, good news for those in syracuse. someone very special's heading your way. that's right. donald trump. gubernatorial hopeful is heading north for a fund-raiser for the onondaga county republican committee. for just $100, be there, too. for a measly $500, even get a photo of trump. in case you can't wait for that, i will be up in syracuse, too. and for just $0, see me speaking about my book "twilight of the elites" at syracuse university in hendricks chapel. free and open to the public. it is tomorrow night. hope to see you there.
12:16 am
12:17 am
the president said that this had nothing to do with the cold war. the issue, the situation in ukraine. in the eyes of vladimir putin, it does. he wants to restore the russian empire. remember putin's the guy who said the worst thing that happened in the 20th century was the fall of the soviet union. and he continues to want to push that reset button and not realize what kind of people we are dealing with. >> senator john mccain believes president barack obama lacks the world experience to deal with the situation in ukraine. mccain suspects the president is too credulous when it comes to these things and he's getting played by vladimir putin. see, in john mccain's world of good guys and bad guys, president obama commits the unforgivable sin as not seeing everything as black and white as he does. we covered ukraine last week and watched all this unfold, i talked about the fact there's some part of you as you watch this that's trying to sense which side you're supposed to root for. as someone who follows the news and who doesn't know a ton about ukraine, i'll admit i'm confused
12:18 am
about what i think should happen even which side i'm on. i think that's a natural, many cases, laudable instinct. but it is also not the single question that should determine one's entire foreign policy world view. and yet john mccain can seem to ask no other question. and it doesn't matter where. go ahead. pick a conflict and john mccain will tell you whose side he's on. like syria. >> providing military assistance to the free syrian army, and other opposition groups is necessary. >> let's take a look back at libya. >> are you concerned about the people that are actually fighting for the opposition here? any worries about them? >> fighting for the opposition? they're my heroes. >> heck, how about back in 2008 when georgia fought their war with russia? >> the small nation of georgia has been subject to russian attacks that threaten its very existence. today, we are all georgians.
12:19 am
>> this is a man with a comic book view of international conflict who then calls the president naive for not serially picking sides as john mccain so ostentatiously does. >> this is the most naive president in history. the naivete of barack obama and john kerry is stunning. >> you know what arguably could be called naive? going on stage at a ukrainian opposition rally and not realizing you're standing next to a man who heads ukraine's right wing nationalist party. a party that was first registered as a neonazi party which is exactly what john mccain did in december when he stood next to ola chuknovov, the leader of ukraine's party, which traces its roots to the ukrainian partisan army of world war ii which was loosely allied. senator chris murphy was there we should note but didn't call the president naive. with ukraine's president yanukovych ousted over the weekend, the guy who stood next
12:20 am
to mccain a couple months ago who said ukraine was run by a, quote, jewish russian mafia is according to "the final times one of five contenders to head up the government. joining me is mark quarterman. it struck me when john mccain talked about vladimir putin having a cold war vision of this conflict he wants the frame of the conflicts to the person on the other side. if they view it in cold war terms, you must as well. >> it's not even clear that vladimir putin views it in cold war terms. we have to remember that ukraine is a country that borders russia. whatever we think about the russian government or recently fallen ukrainian government, russia is going to care deeply about what happens in ukraine. what you described of john mccain's approach to this is an example of a more general problem that we often see mostly among pundits but even u.s. administrations.
12:21 am
that is this desire to pick a good guy and a bad guy and make a public declaration about that. >> the danger on the other side, because i want to argue with myself, there are certain circumstances in the case of the assad government, for instance, where i don't think there's anything really defensible about that government. it seems you can also end up in this weird place of playing apologetics for regimes that are irredeemably corrupt. how do you keep the moral clarity in your head on one level and also decide the world is not a risk board, you have to be essentially entering into every international conflict on? >> that's a fundamental question to ask, chris. i work for an anti-atrocity, anti-genocide crimes against humanity organization. i work to try to stop these conflicts with my colleagues. human rights, i believe, is a u.s. interest, and i think it's
12:22 am
important to realize that countries don't have friends, they have interests. and human rights should be an interest of the u.s. government. the u.s. should make it absolutely clear to governments that carry out atrocities or abuse human rights that it doesn't support that. but to declare one side is good and one side is bad is to take tools out of the toolbox. it's to stymie democracy. think about it. we're now sitting across the table from the syrian government in negotiations. we now need to work with russia to ensure stability as ukraine goes through a transition. and we actually should be dealing more with the sudanese government to help resolve the conflicts there. >> that's what seems so dangerous about this mccain line that he takes which there's some small core part of i do sort of admire. the idea he wants to see the clarity, he wants to make sure the bullies are essentially checked, they're pushed back.
12:23 am
but in a broader sense, what it does is reduces the possibility of finding any kind of non-confrontational means of dealing with these conflict zones. as you just said, we're going to have to essentially work with putin who's done all sorts of terrible things in russia. we're going to have to work with him to figure out a situation in which ukraine does not get ripped asunder or lead to a violent civil war conflict. >> it's absolutely right. as you also pointed out at the top of this segment, you can't be entirely sure who's on the opposition side. >> yes. >> they're strange bedfellows there. the number of people in the street could well be the majority of the people in the street in ukraine who are supportive of a democratic regime, a more open regime. but there are those neonazis there as well. and to blanket, to make a blanket declaration that these are our friends, our buddies, the people we support against this terrible regime, is to do a disservice to what's really happening in the country. >> i've seen troubling reporting in the last 36 hours the hard right contingent of the
12:24 am
opposition movement has been kind of solidifying some of its power base as things there are very fluid. mark quarterman with the enough project. thanks for your time, mark. >> thank you, chris. up next, an unbelievable look at how easy it can be for kids, kids, to get guns. >> it's laughable to everyone here. the idea that we'd ever expose a 13-year-old to the dangers of a lottery ticket. but then we arrive here. at the gun show. >> that story and the reporter behind it, up next.
12:25 am
12:26 am
12:27 am
12:28 am
today, the supreme court dealt a blow to the national rifle association when it decided not to grant the nra an appeal on a really fascinating case that's come out of texas. here's the story. texas, yes, texas, actually prohibits the majority of 18 to 20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public. texas apparently thinks it's a bad idea for teenagers with loaded handguns to be roaming around the state. the nra, which apparently believes everyone should be allowed to carry handguns, sued texas. alleging this was an infringement of the constitutional rights of teens. a federal appeals court upheld the texas ban, the nra appealed and today the supreme court said, nope, we are not hearing this. the nra knows what it is doing because like any good business-minded people, they understand in the immortal words of whitney houston, that the children are our future. the children of today are the consumers of tomorrow.
12:29 am
and that's as true for guns as it is for toothpaste. which is why things like this exist. >> my first rifle. a moment you never forget. the cricket is a perfect way to get young or small framed shooters started right. >> but that is just the tip of the iceberg. a new investigative report reveals not only how easy it for kids to get guns but an entire industry that's behind keeping it that way. >> take a ride with jack. a 13-year-old boy from virginia. we pass shops where he isn't old enough to work the register. then we stop at the convenience store to see jack try to buy beer. >> not happening. no. >> the cashier can't believe he even tried. >> literally, he looks like he's 12. >> at the next store, jack tries to buy cigarettes with no luck. >> i'm so sorry. >> later he strikes out trying to buy racy magazines. >> you have to be 18 or older. >> okay. thank you. >> then lottery tickets.
12:30 am
>> can i get a couple scratch-offs? >> how old are you? you have your i.d.? >> 13. >> you're what? >> 13. >> you can't get no scratch-off. >> it's laughable to everyone here. the idea that we'd ever expose a 13-year-old to the dangers of a lottery ticket. but then we arrive here. at the gun show. >> it should shoot pretty good for you. >> i'll take it. >> within minutes, the 13-year-old easily and legally bought a .22 caliber rifle from a private seller and walked away with it. >> joining me now, correspondent behind that hbo real sports report, john frankel. john, what, what -- >> that's, i mean, that's the crux of our piece right there. that laws whether you agree with them or not exist that say you can't buy beer, can't buy cigarettes, that you can't buy a lottery ticket which lord knows might really hurt you. and you can't buy pornographic magazines but in many places you can legally go in and buy a gun. let me give you another example.
12:31 am
there are laws on the book in the state of pennsylvania that says you have to be 18 to operate a deli counter meat slicer. >> those things are dangerous. >> there's no question. you can hurt yourself. but you can be 12 and operate a gun. in the state of montana, you have to be 14 to operate a riding lawn mower. again, that can be dangerous. no one wants to stick their hand underneath one of those things. but you can be 8 and operate a gun. >> how is this the case? what is the legal terrain that makes it the case that you, i'm sorry, childrens a 13-year-old, a child, can get, purchase a gun? >> well, the laws are different everywhere. the federal government basically will tell you there's no minimum age. the federal government does not state a minimum age to buy rifles or shotguns or handguns from unlicensed dealers. so there are a lot of areas and there's a lot of discrepancies. i mean, federal law will trump state law. when the federal law doesn't
12:32 am
have existing laws, the state laws will put in place certain regulations, but they're all over the place. and what -- partly what's happened here and what we also discuss is that in 35 states now in this country, the organizations that are involved with the gun industry, the national shooting sports foundation and the nra, have successfully been able to roll back the laws in many of these states that make it permissible for young kids to access guns. not to buy but to be able to use them with very little training. so, for instance, you know, if you were taking driver's ed, right, you'd go and take a full slate of driver's ed courses, go out, get on the road. in many of the gun safety courses you go in, in a day's time, six, seven hours you take a gun safety course, you don't operate a live gun and the same day you walk out with a certificate that says i'm now certified to operate a gun. you can do it in illinois at the age of 4. >> yeah, there are seven states, alabama, arkansas, indiana, new mexico, illinois, vermont, washington, with no minimum age for solo hunting.
12:33 am
>> right. granted in those seven states they were not specifically part of this most recent campaign by the -- >> right. >> to roll back these laws. you know, look, this all started back in '96, the president of the nra says we want to make a concerted effort. they did a study, looked at kids and wanted to see what their attitudes were toward guns. basically they came up with the idea we need to do a better job of recruiting and retaining these kids when it comes to handguns and shooting sports. >> into gun culture. >> indoctrinate them into this idea. the same way you would take your kid to little league. >> yeah. >> that's part of the thing i want us to understand. you said you want to argue both sides. i'll argue both sides. there is a culture out there that has grown up with this and feel like guns are part of their heritage. not part of my background, but i understand that. what we're talks about is what's the common sense here that you can't operate a deli meat slicer, can't buy a lottery ticket, but why is it you're
12:34 am
willing to allow these kids to operate guns? >> there are places in the country where car culture is an incredibly powerful thing and everyone gets their driver's license at 16 and everyone has an old beat up car they get and they're comparing their cars and all go hang out. we also recognize a car is a dangerous thing and don't give them out willy-nilly to children. >> interestingly enough, andy fink who i interview in the piece, he has a sports shooting team in boise, idaho. he said, i didn't even set the trap for him, he said on his own accord, i wouldn't get in the car with my own 7-year-old. >> right. >> well, okay. that begs the question then, why would you let the 7-year-old have the gun? >> john frankel, the report will air on "real sports with bryant gumbel" tomorrow night, 10:00 p.m. eastern on hbo. great piece of work. thanks for coming by. >> thanks for having me. the cutting edge of the culture wars, this is a new frontier and how it is playing out in statehouses and courthouses from arizona to kansas, ahead.
12:35 am
12:36 am
12:37 am
your hepatitis c.forget it's slow moving, you tell yourself. i have time. after all there may be no symptoms for years. no wonder you try to push it to the back of your mind and forget it. but here's something you shouldn't forget. hepatitis c is a serious disease. if left untreated, it could lead to liver damage and potentially even liver cancer. if you are one of the millions of people with hepatitis c, you haven't been forgotten. there's never been a better time to rethink your hep c. because people like you may benefit from scientific advances. advances that could help you move on from hep c. now is the time to rethink hep c and talk to your doctor. visit to find out about treatment options. and register for a personalized guide to help you prepare for a conversation with your doctor.
12:38 am
last august a guy named phillip hall was fired from his job as a pharmacist at a tennessee walgreens store. now he's suing walgreens saying he was fired because of his religion, fired for refusing to take part in something that would be sinful and repugnant to his sincerely held religious beliefs. what kind of immoral behavior is the walgreens store -- selling plan "b" known as the morning after bill. phillip hall did not refuse to sell emergency birth control, here's what else he did according to his own lawsuit. last summer after the fda ordered that plan "b" be made available over the counter on drugstore shelves, phillip hall decided to purchase the store's entire lot of the drugs himself and disposed of all six boxes of the pills. he claims the boxes were mislabeled and personally purchased and disposed of them. that's a claim the courts will presumably sort out. what no one disputes is he's a
12:39 am
pharmacist who opposes birth control on religious grounds who chose to buy and trash an entire shipment of emergency birth control rather than see it on store shelves. now phillip hall is set to become the next martyr for the religious right, forces a persecution everywhere they look. we'll explain how phillip hall's case relates to arizona's republican governor jan brewer and the big decision the whole nation is watching for, next. [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love,
12:40 am
get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some financial folks who will talk to them about preparing early for retirement and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.
12:41 am
12:42 am
12:43 am
if you were online this weekend, there's a good chance you saw this. it's a sign posted in the window of rocco's pizzeria in tucson, arizona, claiming the restaurant refuses the right to serve arizona legislators, response to the bill's the pizzaria's owner calls appalling. sb-1062 which would give businesses rights to refuse to serve gay people on the basis of religion. the sign was part of a major backlash against the bill which is only growing and widely seen as blatantly anti-gay. and which prompted protests at the arizona capitol after it passed through the legislature last week. it's not just one restaurant owner and liberal activists who are outraged about this. in fact, the state is in open revolt. businesses have a law including marriott and apple among more than 80 companies that urged the governor to veto it. calling for a veto are both of arizona's republican senators, john mccain and jeff blake.
12:44 am
in fact, three of the republican lawmakers who voted for the bill last week today sent a letter to the governor urging her to veto it because the perception of the bill as anti-gay is causing our state immeasurable harm. one of those lawmakers will join me in a moment. matthew dowd, former top strategist for president george bush compared -- now, the clock is ticking. a decision on whether to sign or veto the bill is due this week and it all comes down to one person. >> the bill is transmittal and i don't have to make a decision until next friday so i've got plenty of time. >> that's right. arizona republican governor jan brewer, shown here giving president obama a piece of her mind on the airport tarmac back in 2012. you probably remember brewer for signing the last massively controversial bill to come out of arizona, sb-1070.
12:45 am
the draconian anti-illegal immigration law that earned the ire of the president back in 2010. now, brewer has vetoed this kind of anti-gay legislation in the past and to her great credit she fought hard to win medicaid expansion in her state last year over republican opposition. we will find out this week if she's going to do the right thing this time around. arizona state senator steve pierce is asking the governor to veto is joins me now. senator, the first question is, why did you vote for this thing? >> as i've said a number of times today, it was a mistake and a miscalculation. we had no idea there would be the fallout like there has been because, frankly, we voted on the same bill a year ago and sent it up to the governor and she vetoed it. so the sponsor of the bill brought it back again this year and it's just unbelievable what's happened.
12:46 am
and it's not good for the state. >> well, let me ask you this, though. i want to separate out the public -- the publicity backlash and the merits of the bill. do you still think the merits of the bill are a good idea? is it good policy to expand out the kind of conscience clause to allow for this kind of discrimination in kind of the commercial sphere? >> when i voted on it, i did not look toward discrimination at all. i didn't see that in there. as the days went on after we voted, it was from constituents and the public and the outcry from it. and, you know, i've been listening to things all day about the discrimination, and there is none, in my view, and i don't -- if there is, i'm totally against it. but as it is, i have come to the conclusion with two others that we wrote a letter to the governor telling her we thought she should veto the bill. >> what did you think the bill would allow? >> you know, we were told that
12:47 am
it would be codifying existing laws that we have on the books right now. and to codify, well, then why do we need it? and, you know, we were not sold on the bill in the very start. back three weeks ago, i went to different groups trying to get some support and say, i'm concerned about this, what do you want to do? nobody really would say anything until we finally voted for it. and then all hell broke loose and it's terrible and you can see what's been going on. >> i want to talk about what you think the governor is going to do. one more question on this line of inquiry. who is pushing for it? if you were confused about what it would do or wouldn't do, who thinks it will do something, and what do they think it will do? >> the people that were behind it, there's one called the center for arizona policy and it was promoting it, and they're the ones behind it. and they brought it forward. i believe it was going to be slowed down.
12:48 am
it wasn't going to come to the floor as soon as it did, but for some reason, it jumped the track and it came last wednesday and then right directly after that we voted on it. there were a number of us texting each other madly, do we go with it, do we not? we made a mistake. that's about all i can tell you is we went the wrong way. >> i have to say, i admire you saying that. it's extremely rare in politics that elected leaders utter those words even though they mick mistakes all the time. what do you anticipate the governor will do faced with this decision? >> well, she's got lots of support to veto it. there's, as you said a few minutes ago, there's a lot of support, there's companies, there's a lot of things going on, and i don't know what she's going to do. i hope she'll consider all that and veto the bill. she vetoed it last year. and it would be fine if she vetoed it this year. it -- it is not what i think the
12:49 am
media is portraying it. it's not as bad as that. i don't believe -- if there's any kind of discrimination in it, like i said, i'd be totally against it, and that wasn't the concern to us. >> but the concern, with respect here, senator, i mean, this grew out of a case in new mexico in which a wedding photographer refused to photograph the wedding of a lesbian couple. she was found to be in violation of that state's constitution. there are a raft of laws to essentially override that kind of decision which would mean essentially allows people who provide services in the marketplace to not give them to gay and lesbian people. that is the genesis of this whole thing. >> well, you're right from new mexico it was, but when i was thinking about it, it wasn't toward gays and lesbians. but nevertheless, i'm opposed to it.
12:50 am
i made a mistake. it's up to the governor. she's a strong leader. she'll be back here and take charge of the issue when she can get back, and she'll do the right thing. i'm certain. i'm not saying whether it's vetoing or signing. i hope that she vetoes it. >> arizona state senate president steve pierce. thanks so much for your time. really appreciate it. >> you bet. thank you. up next, how what's happening in arizona is part of a bigger plan for culture warriors across the country. stay tuned. any projects on my home. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.
12:51 am
crest 3d white whitestrips vs. a whitening pen. i feel like my lips are going to, like, wash it off. these fit nicely. [ female announcer ] crest 3d white whitestrips keep the whitening ingredient in place, guaranteeing professional level results. crest whitestrips. the way to whiten. let me go shoot my brother or some darker people or some poor hungry people. >> there is something very appealing to the left, to me, about conscience. about doing what you feel is right even in the face of opposition. but what happens when that very same principle is used as a defense for anti-gay, anti-reproductive rights arguments? we're going to take a look at that, next.
12:52 am
12:53 am
12:54 am
yesterday's supreme court rulings on gay marriage raise a crucial question. how should the church respond to a culture that seems increasingly hostile to christianity and christian principles? >> from boston to zanzibar, there's a worldwide war on christianity. >> there is no doubt that judeo-christian tradition in this country is under attack. >> the anti-gay bill in arizona is part of a trend. there's been religious protection legislation introduced in ohio, kansas, mississippi, idaho, south dakota, tennessee, oklahoma among other states. is bill is moving swiftly through georgia house. oregon, there's a measure being voted to allow businesses to refuse to provide services to marriages or commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples. the supreme court will hear two cases in which businesses are seeking exemptions from providing contraception to employees under this. this represents the new approach of the right. the idea is to take a category
12:55 am
called conscience and use it as a kind of crowbar to pry open policies they don't like. joining me now, kenji yoshino. professor of constitutional law at myu school of law. ted shaw, columbia law school professor and former president of the naacp legal defense fund. okay. let's start with this -- kenji, you were saying to any something off the camera, the conversation i just had with state senator pierce about what the initial justification or why they wanted to pass the bill. >> yeah. so, chris, on the one hand, i applaud you for applauding him in a way. i'm torn. on the one hand, it's great when politicians -- we're all make mistakes. it's great when people step up and say that. on the other hand, i spent half of last night listening to these arizona state hearings. >> on this bill. >> win are now online. on this bill. 1062. this, all of the comments that he gave, and all the comments his three colleagues for flipping, oh, we didn't realize this was anti-gay, people stood up on the floor and made these
12:56 am
arguments ad nauseam it would be bad for gays and flowed out of this new mexico case. much hay was made of that. it's a little bit -- i'm torn. on the one hand i'd say it's great you're acknowledging this. on the other hand, all these arguments were put before you. it's disingenuous to say, i'm shocked that this is going to hurt gay people. >> ted, how do you think around this conscience of questions? there's some idea in which we say we don't want the state to coerce people into doing something that violates some sacred inner part of them yet at the same time, we all meet each other in the marketplace and doesn't seem like we should allow the first amendment to sort of act as a kind of carveout for folks to willy-nilly impose, you know, confessional grudges against people they think are skizmatic or personal prejudice. >> first let me say i did not watch the arizona legislature debates. that would have been a couple hours of nigh life i would have never got back. but, you know, there's a long history of these kinds of conflicts, you know, bumping up
12:57 am
against religious beliefs, for example. racial discrimination. think about the bob dylan case some years back. >> this is a really important one. >> bob jones. >> explain the bob jones case. >> case in which university that didn't allow interracial dating or intermarriage among students, et cetera. you can be kicked out for that. wanted to be a tax exemption with the reagan administration restored to them. and it was a change in policy. the supreme court said that that was -- that the united states government could deny them that status. that kind of discrimination -- >> doesn't matter if it's your faith. >> exactly right. exactly right. so the key to what you just said, we all meet in the marketplace. we're not talking about people meeting in the synagogue, church, or the mosque. we're talking about in the marketplace here. >> right. >> so we're not talking about people yielding religious beliefs when we're talking about businesses and serving people. you know, this is going backwards. this is just blatant discrimination.
12:58 am
and when we, you know, you have those kinds of religious beliefs bumping up against discrimination, you know, in the marketplace -- >> they got to yield. >> that's right. >> and, you know, this is one of the scenarios where, like, citing the founders, when you think about something like the commerce clause, the founders couldn't have understood how intertwined our interstate commerce would be. but they couldn't have predicted that we would have over 300 religions in the united states. it becomes completely untenable for anyone to navigate a public sphere in which any one of us can say i'm a satanist so i believe this or i'm an "x," "y," "z," so i believe that. there are people who say i belong to the church of marijuana, therefore i'm allowed to avoid the controlled substances act. >> churches have not looked fondly on those arguments. >> with the sincerity of belief things, they throw up their hands. they're like, we can't go into that.
12:59 am
but with regard to the substantial burden, you're right. they go back and forth. >> and this is one of the things in this law, why it was so -- why, ted. state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion. i mean, that is -- >> what do you do with that? >> yeah, what do you do with that? >> that's right. the problem there is that it leaves out there for any individual to argue that their beliefs are being impinged upon. you know, that's just not our country. that's going back in a huge way. so it's really stunning legislation that it would even be advanced. >> i think there is a certain contingent who thought they were going to get away with it. everyone is looking at it and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. >> the good news is in some ways, the worst the better. >> right. bring it out into the light. >> we're seeing people reacting. the country is moving beyond this. >> kenji yoshino. ted shaw.
1:00 am
thank you, gentlemen. appreciate it. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" begins now. thanks to you, my friend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. barney frank is with us in a minute. in 1985 a group called the parents music resource center tried to get congress to essentially come up with a labeling and/or censorship program for popular american music. we're having a bit of a moral panic at the time about kids these days and their degenerate music. so this parents group which was spearheaded by a bipartisan bunch including tipper gore and james baker's wife, susan baker, they formed this group and went after the music industry. there were these amazing congressional hearings in the '80s on this issue. where everybody from john denver, god bless him, to d. snyder of twisted sister turned out at these congressional hearings to talk about whether music really is pornography wi


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on